Chris Griggs
02-24-2014, 10:49 AM
A couple days ago I mentioned that I had picked up an LV no.6 off ebay. Dave commented that despite the fact that the LV BD planes have been around for quite a while that they don't get much press and Jim K asked me to post some pics of the inner workings....so here it is. Just FYI, though I'll comment on what I like and dislike, this is not a review or a comment on "quality"..more of just kinda pointing out differences between the LV BD design the bedrock reproductions (Clifton, WR, LN)...more of an off the cuff, rambling, more than likely riddled with typos"info session" than a review.
The most significant difference is the frogs. Below from left to right you see a Type 11 Bailey 7, the LV no. 6, and a WR (bedrock) No 6. You can see that both the bedrock and the LV fully support the blade,all the way down to the sole. Both are brilliant designs (as is the regular Bailey for that matter). The most obvious difference is probably the single screw of the LV compared to the double screw of the bedrock/bailey. Both the bedrock design and the LV design allow you to adjust the frog (close open the mouth without removing the blade). As most know, with the bedrock the frog is loosened and adjusted by screws behind it. With the LV, the frog is loosened by inserting a screw driver through a hole in the lever cap and loosening the single screw, and then by loosening a brass knob behind the frog. Another brass knob behind the frog then moves the frog in the same way the frog adjustment scrw on a bedrock does. Another big difference in the frog design is that when adjusting the bedrock, moving the frog forward also deepens the cut, whereas with the LV the full length frog allows you set the blade for the approximate depth of cut you will be taking and then close or open the throat to the appropriate setting. When it comes to adjusting the frog I do find the LV design to be a little nicer/more user friendly...its a very smart and under-appreciated design. I'm a "set it and forget kinda guy" so frog adjustment isn't a huge deal to me, but when first setting up the plane for the moderately heavy trying plane work I will use it for it was nice to be able to put the throat where i want it so effortlessly.
283199
One potential disadvantage of the full length frog that I recall Schwarz commenting on in something I read quite some time ago is that the second "gap" created by the frog extending through the sole can make it harder to identify the blade projection whilst sighting down the sole. Well, this did throw me me once or twice, but generally, I haven't found it to be an issue.
283200 283203
Another major design difference is the traditional bailey adjuster vs the Norris adjuster. The LV Norris adjuster is very nicely executed and works great. I don't really have a strong preference either way for the Norris vs the Bailey. I do like Baily adjusters very slightly more I guess, if only because the habit of using bailey adjusters can lead the Norris to throw you off from time to time, and there is something to be said for separate lateral and depth adjustments. On the other hand there are couple advantages to the Norris. I sorta like the accessibility of having the adjuster above the tote, and it gives more space between the tote and frog. This isn't an issue on something like a 6, but it occurred to me that it would provide just enough extra space to make a small down smoother (e.g. No. 3) that would actually fit my hand. Its kind of a shame LV never made a No. 3 out of this design, if they did I would declare it the best No. 3 ever made....this hand space in a small plane is a big part of why I love the SBUS so much, but I would like that feature in a BD plane even better.
283201 283202
Another interesting thing I noticed about the LV norris adjuster when playing around with this is that its seems that the removability seems to have originally been a feature. This is not in comparison to the bedrock reproductions (since the lateral swings fully out of the way), but in the BU bench/block planes, they have since begun securing the norris adjuster as its removability can be a nuisance in a BU plane. In their BD planes, however, it lets you access the tote screw more readily when the handle is loose. Again, this isn't really a feature of much consequence (how often do you really need to tighten down your totes?), but I happened to notice it and take a liking to this small detail right away as this "pre-owned" ebay plane arrived with very very loose tote. Based on my experience with the BU planes that don't have the adjuster secured I would have never thought this this was a deliberate design feature until I saw it on the BD plane....just found the realization kinda interesting.
I mentioned previously too that LV is the only modern maker (to my knowledge) that kept the traditional Stanley cap iron. I initially thought they had thickened it a little but as you can see from the photo it is pretty much identical and has that same nice spring to it. This is something I definitely like better than the "improved" cap iron. Oh and for those interested the cap iron screw is knurled on the LV but not on the WR:)
(Blade/cap iron assemblies from left to right: Bailey, LV, Woodriver)
283198
While the design differences of the frogs and adjusters are on paper the biggest difference between the LV and the Bedrock reproductions, they are at the end of the day of little consequence to me. I do like and appreciate how smart the LV redesign is, but what I really care about is how these planes feel/behave in use.
One of the main reasons I had been keeping my eye out for a deal on an LV 6 to have instead of my WR had to do with weight and proportion. In addition to the LV being 6 3/4 lbs compared to the WRs whopping 8lbs, it has its mouth setback noticeably farther (about halfway between the distance on my Bailey 7 and that of my WR 6).
283197
The weight and proportion do indeed make these very different feeling planes. The LV is much lighter feeling and much more nimble feeling, but the setback mouth simultaneously makes is feel longer. The center of gravity alsso feels a little lower on the LV...nowhere near as low as on a BU plane but noticeably lower than most BD planes. It's very nicely proportioned and balanced tool.
That said, I haven't yet decided which 6 I'll keep LV or the WR. Not surprisingly the LV (being LV) is a somewhat nicer executed tool than the WR, but I have always found the WR to be a great tool. I had expected to immediately like the lighter weight of the LV better all around, but now realize that there are moments where the weight of the WR is nice. For the most part I do think I like the lighter weight and the proportions of the LV better, and I also like the "different" design. However, as I expected, I like the bailey tote of the WR better...I don't love or dislike the LV totes the way some folks do but I do prefer something more forward leaning.
At the end of the day I'll be perfectly happy keeping either. In regards to both the tote and weight, I tend to naturally adjust how I use the tool to get the most comfort and efficiency out of it so really am more than happy with either. I think I'm going to hold off on selling either until I've had a chance to do some more work with the LV to make up my mind which I like better, but before too long I will be sticking one or the other in the classifieds.
Anyway, this is sorta long and rambling so I guess I'll some up my thoughts and subjective feeling/preferences (again not intended to be an objective review/assessment)
- For the frog and frog adjustments I like the LV better. It really is a very smart and I think under appreciated design.
- For depth and lateral adjustments its a tossup for me. Both work great. I like some things about the Bailey better and some about the Norris better. They both work (hell, a mallet works) so really I don't care which I'm using
- For what I'll call the "proportions", I like the LV better...as in, I like what the set back mouth does to the feel of the plane.
- For the tote...I really do prefer the Bailey...actually my favorite totes are the ones on the no 5 and larger Miller Falls planes, which are even more curved and swept forward than the Baileys (see photo below: Front, LV LA Jack; Middle, Bailey No. 4, Back, MF 14..my favorite tote). I do however, love the mushroom knobs found on the LV 6 and the LA jack
283187
- Lastly, weight. Err.... I like the lighter weight of the LV a little better for how I use a 6 [as a medium heavy (but certainly not coarsely) set try plane in moderate North American hardwoods]...but its a tough call. Really depends on the wood being worked, the thickness of cut, and how long one is using the plane.
- More generally, I do feel that the LV BD is an underrated very smart design. If it had a Bailey tote and lever cap, it would be a clearer favorite for me over the bedrock reproductions. As it is, I like some things better about one design and some better about the other...both are pretty brilliant and at the end of the day, any nicely executed tool (LN, LV, Clifton, WR, Vintage Bailey/bedrock, woody, whatever) is a pleasure to use.
Anyway, hope that address's any wonderances people had about the differences between the LV BD design and the Bedrock reproductions.
(Oh yeah one more funny thing that I think someone mentioned recently. People often comment that the LV planes aren't as physically attractive as there bedrock couterparts (mainly LN and clifton). Well I can't say I disagree with this but what's weird, is that they seem to always look better in person than in photos. While not as elegant looking as an LN are actually pretty cool looking in their own right, but for some reason not very photogenic....go figure)
The most significant difference is the frogs. Below from left to right you see a Type 11 Bailey 7, the LV no. 6, and a WR (bedrock) No 6. You can see that both the bedrock and the LV fully support the blade,all the way down to the sole. Both are brilliant designs (as is the regular Bailey for that matter). The most obvious difference is probably the single screw of the LV compared to the double screw of the bedrock/bailey. Both the bedrock design and the LV design allow you to adjust the frog (close open the mouth without removing the blade). As most know, with the bedrock the frog is loosened and adjusted by screws behind it. With the LV, the frog is loosened by inserting a screw driver through a hole in the lever cap and loosening the single screw, and then by loosening a brass knob behind the frog. Another brass knob behind the frog then moves the frog in the same way the frog adjustment scrw on a bedrock does. Another big difference in the frog design is that when adjusting the bedrock, moving the frog forward also deepens the cut, whereas with the LV the full length frog allows you set the blade for the approximate depth of cut you will be taking and then close or open the throat to the appropriate setting. When it comes to adjusting the frog I do find the LV design to be a little nicer/more user friendly...its a very smart and under-appreciated design. I'm a "set it and forget kinda guy" so frog adjustment isn't a huge deal to me, but when first setting up the plane for the moderately heavy trying plane work I will use it for it was nice to be able to put the throat where i want it so effortlessly.
283199
One potential disadvantage of the full length frog that I recall Schwarz commenting on in something I read quite some time ago is that the second "gap" created by the frog extending through the sole can make it harder to identify the blade projection whilst sighting down the sole. Well, this did throw me me once or twice, but generally, I haven't found it to be an issue.
283200 283203
Another major design difference is the traditional bailey adjuster vs the Norris adjuster. The LV Norris adjuster is very nicely executed and works great. I don't really have a strong preference either way for the Norris vs the Bailey. I do like Baily adjusters very slightly more I guess, if only because the habit of using bailey adjusters can lead the Norris to throw you off from time to time, and there is something to be said for separate lateral and depth adjustments. On the other hand there are couple advantages to the Norris. I sorta like the accessibility of having the adjuster above the tote, and it gives more space between the tote and frog. This isn't an issue on something like a 6, but it occurred to me that it would provide just enough extra space to make a small down smoother (e.g. No. 3) that would actually fit my hand. Its kind of a shame LV never made a No. 3 out of this design, if they did I would declare it the best No. 3 ever made....this hand space in a small plane is a big part of why I love the SBUS so much, but I would like that feature in a BD plane even better.
283201 283202
Another interesting thing I noticed about the LV norris adjuster when playing around with this is that its seems that the removability seems to have originally been a feature. This is not in comparison to the bedrock reproductions (since the lateral swings fully out of the way), but in the BU bench/block planes, they have since begun securing the norris adjuster as its removability can be a nuisance in a BU plane. In their BD planes, however, it lets you access the tote screw more readily when the handle is loose. Again, this isn't really a feature of much consequence (how often do you really need to tighten down your totes?), but I happened to notice it and take a liking to this small detail right away as this "pre-owned" ebay plane arrived with very very loose tote. Based on my experience with the BU planes that don't have the adjuster secured I would have never thought this this was a deliberate design feature until I saw it on the BD plane....just found the realization kinda interesting.
I mentioned previously too that LV is the only modern maker (to my knowledge) that kept the traditional Stanley cap iron. I initially thought they had thickened it a little but as you can see from the photo it is pretty much identical and has that same nice spring to it. This is something I definitely like better than the "improved" cap iron. Oh and for those interested the cap iron screw is knurled on the LV but not on the WR:)
(Blade/cap iron assemblies from left to right: Bailey, LV, Woodriver)
283198
While the design differences of the frogs and adjusters are on paper the biggest difference between the LV and the Bedrock reproductions, they are at the end of the day of little consequence to me. I do like and appreciate how smart the LV redesign is, but what I really care about is how these planes feel/behave in use.
One of the main reasons I had been keeping my eye out for a deal on an LV 6 to have instead of my WR had to do with weight and proportion. In addition to the LV being 6 3/4 lbs compared to the WRs whopping 8lbs, it has its mouth setback noticeably farther (about halfway between the distance on my Bailey 7 and that of my WR 6).
283197
The weight and proportion do indeed make these very different feeling planes. The LV is much lighter feeling and much more nimble feeling, but the setback mouth simultaneously makes is feel longer. The center of gravity alsso feels a little lower on the LV...nowhere near as low as on a BU plane but noticeably lower than most BD planes. It's very nicely proportioned and balanced tool.
That said, I haven't yet decided which 6 I'll keep LV or the WR. Not surprisingly the LV (being LV) is a somewhat nicer executed tool than the WR, but I have always found the WR to be a great tool. I had expected to immediately like the lighter weight of the LV better all around, but now realize that there are moments where the weight of the WR is nice. For the most part I do think I like the lighter weight and the proportions of the LV better, and I also like the "different" design. However, as I expected, I like the bailey tote of the WR better...I don't love or dislike the LV totes the way some folks do but I do prefer something more forward leaning.
At the end of the day I'll be perfectly happy keeping either. In regards to both the tote and weight, I tend to naturally adjust how I use the tool to get the most comfort and efficiency out of it so really am more than happy with either. I think I'm going to hold off on selling either until I've had a chance to do some more work with the LV to make up my mind which I like better, but before too long I will be sticking one or the other in the classifieds.
Anyway, this is sorta long and rambling so I guess I'll some up my thoughts and subjective feeling/preferences (again not intended to be an objective review/assessment)
- For the frog and frog adjustments I like the LV better. It really is a very smart and I think under appreciated design.
- For depth and lateral adjustments its a tossup for me. Both work great. I like some things about the Bailey better and some about the Norris better. They both work (hell, a mallet works) so really I don't care which I'm using
- For what I'll call the "proportions", I like the LV better...as in, I like what the set back mouth does to the feel of the plane.
- For the tote...I really do prefer the Bailey...actually my favorite totes are the ones on the no 5 and larger Miller Falls planes, which are even more curved and swept forward than the Baileys (see photo below: Front, LV LA Jack; Middle, Bailey No. 4, Back, MF 14..my favorite tote). I do however, love the mushroom knobs found on the LV 6 and the LA jack
283187
- Lastly, weight. Err.... I like the lighter weight of the LV a little better for how I use a 6 [as a medium heavy (but certainly not coarsely) set try plane in moderate North American hardwoods]...but its a tough call. Really depends on the wood being worked, the thickness of cut, and how long one is using the plane.
- More generally, I do feel that the LV BD is an underrated very smart design. If it had a Bailey tote and lever cap, it would be a clearer favorite for me over the bedrock reproductions. As it is, I like some things better about one design and some better about the other...both are pretty brilliant and at the end of the day, any nicely executed tool (LN, LV, Clifton, WR, Vintage Bailey/bedrock, woody, whatever) is a pleasure to use.
Anyway, hope that address's any wonderances people had about the differences between the LV BD design and the Bedrock reproductions.
(Oh yeah one more funny thing that I think someone mentioned recently. People often comment that the LV planes aren't as physically attractive as there bedrock couterparts (mainly LN and clifton). Well I can't say I disagree with this but what's weird, is that they seem to always look better in person than in photos. While not as elegant looking as an LN are actually pretty cool looking in their own right, but for some reason not very photogenic....go figure)